As “left” and “right” categories dissolve and become increasingly meaningless on the American ideological scene, as young people, with the collapse of both the SDS-Left and the liberal “consensus,” grope toward a new philosophy and a new orientation, the emerging phenomenon of right-libertarianism may be destined for an important role in American life. FULL ARTICLE by Murray N. Rothbard
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/15076/the-left-and-right-within-libertarianism/
The Left and Right within Libertarianism
Previous post: Playing by the Rules
Next post: The Ozone Scare: A Retrospective
{ 256 comments }
Reagan said “I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man’s age-old dream — the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order — or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism.”
This can be condensed to simply, “Statists, up yours!”
I don’t know how Rothbard or any other libertarian could not or cannot see the hypocracy in excluding abortion from property rights violations. When does a mother stop owning their child? I immediately knocked Murray down from the heights of my admiration with that short sighted, illogical statement.
Abortion always boils down to the question of whether the fetus is to be regarded as a human, and thus equal to any of us, or as something less than human. If a Libertarian believes a fetus to be human, he necessarily believes he or she has possession over his or her own body, making abortion a violation of the right of every self-owner not to be killed. Simply because some libertarians believe that fetuses are not persons does not mean that such people can force the consequences of that belief upon other libertarians who do not share that belief. But that’s not going to stop them from trying.
If you’re a doctor and you refuse to perform life saving surgery for someone who can’t (or won’t) pay, you aren’t committing murder.
Abortion works the same way. A mother has no obligation to take care of a child she doesn’t want any more than she has the obligation to serve anyone else.
Are you committing murder if you pull someone off life support without their consent because they can’t pay or because you want to use the life support apparatus for someone else?
Of course not. It’s your life support system, isn’t it? Depending on the circumstances it would make you an enormous douche but by propertarian standards it wouldn’t make you a murderer.
Would it then be murder to cut a safety rope, causing someone to fall to their death, even if it was your rope?
How can you be sure that you’re not keeping them alive against their will? You could be violating their property rights by forcing them to stay alive.
This is a hypotethical, so that’s irrelevant.
So based on your logic the mother is committing murder because she has no obligation to take care of a child she doesn’t want.
The problem with the mother is that there is a male sperm donor involved. Sometimes they are called fathers, if the shoe fits. When the mother consents to sexual relations and becomes pregnant than there are two people involved. It doesn’t matter that the mother is a host for 9 months.(somebody had to do it) So there is joint responsibility to ensure that murder is not committed by the host. Being a mother is not sacred, but a biological function reserved for the female species. Just because you are a libertarian does not give you the right to murder, kill, dispose of another life. The whole argument about when does life begin is pretty straight forward. It starts at conception. The process of life begins and if nurtured will result in a baby. Some women have a hard time with this because they think they are not as free as men if they cannot enjoy sex without consequences. We as humans want to have everyone free and dancing in the fields together. To reach this narvana we have to confuse our logic by saying we don’t know when life begins. It begins at conception that is why we abort to get rid of it. You don’t abort something that is not alive. Shall we change the language to make everyone feel better about themselves?
A true libertarian will fight for the life of all and that includes vulnerable babies residing in irresponsible hosts that want to party all night long.
> Abortion works the same way.
Murder requires malice and forethought. You have to kill somebody out of hatred or you lie and wait and murder them for robbery. Something like that.
Abortion is none of those things.
Abortion is more like being a drunk driver and you run over a small child. That is not murder, but it’s not a good thing either. It’s more like manslaughter. Your causing a death out of stupidity, ignorance, and irresponsibility.
A drunk driver that kills somebody is probably not evil and did not do it out of malice or on purpose. They just had a moment in their lives where they did something they should never have been doing in the first place and they killed somebody.
THAT is what Abortion is.
A unborn infant is still a human being. It has it’s own unique DNA that is different from every other person in the universe. Almost immediately it begins to have it’s own separate nervous system, circulatory system. It’s a human being. The point of conception is the only logical firm separation between what is a independent human being and what is a father and a mother. We were all at that stage, however it seems that people feel that abortion is justifiable because it’s a person that is not viable outside of it’s protective enclosure and depends on a single person for subsidence. According to some people we should be able to legally kill people up to three years of age for the same reasons that we should be able to kill people who are still in their mother’s womb. It’s not really much different, morally, from what the Greeks used to do in ancient times and leave babies out in the wilderness to die.
A person that does abortion is doing it out of ignorance, stupidity, or just pure selfishness. They did at least 2 things that they should never have done… but they are not evil people and it’s not murder. To say it is just ignorant and stupid itself.
By californian law it could be murder, (with malice aforethought defined as an express and malice “in that there is manifested a deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a fellow creature.”) if (and only IF) abortion was illegal. Ie, if abortions were not legal in california they could be considered murder under this stature.
Malice does not necessarily refer to feelings of hatred, and forethought is certainly demonstrated in that you need an appointment to have the abortion done.
I also disagree with the drunk driving analogy.
This is probably the single hardest concept to deal with in libertarian philosophy. I certainly haven’t taken a stance one way or another, there are too many unanswered questions. What is life? When does it begin? Is it with consciousness? Is there a point that life ceases being organized cells and becomes something more? Is a foetus, that looks like a developing frog, really human, or is it like an animal we have no moral qualms about slaughtering for ripping up our lawns?
Is life the sperm and the egg? The moment they come together? Some later point in development? Heartbeat, brain activity? Is it when the child could conceivably live without the mother’s womb? When it exits the birth canal? Some point at two years later when you’re issued a soul like Henchman 23 said in Venture Bros? The extremes can range anywhere from total on-demand abortion no matter the age to throwing people in prison for the murder of millions for masturbating.
Until that dividing line can be found between the point life starts and that life becomes a special human life over the mundane life of everything else on Earth, there won’t be a true answer, just endless arguments.
I find myself constantly both amused and frustrated by all these arguments put forth by one faction or another, most always centering around the idea of maximum freedom. Does it ever occur to anyone that any “system” is opposed to true freedom? “You can be free except for_” is an oxy-moron. True freedom is an individual making his own decisions for his own reasons.
Well, you could say that you’re free to do anything you want, as long as you don’t limit someone else’s freedom. Is it limiting my freedom to say I can’t kill someone, or respecting that person’s freedom to be alive? In that sense, freedom can be maximized. Of course, there are gray areas where conflict can occur.
There is no gray, only black near white viewed from too great a distance. (credit me for the quote)
I see no reason that we wouldn’t make the assumption that we should err on the side of caution. If a person is non-responsive, do we not check for a pulse and breathing before taking their things? The fact that it may take the young one (regardless of birth status) several years or decades to ‘wake up’ in no way diminishes their self-ownership. We know the potential is there, so we mustn’t act as if it weren’t there.To back up my thoughts, here are my assumptions: – Life begins at conception. I used to believe it began after twinning is no longer possible, but that can’t hold water because I wouldn’t claim that a flatworm is not alive even though it can be twinned well into its adult life. – Viability is a non-argument. If a person of any age was dropped in the middle of the ocean, the desert, or the moon, odds are they are non-viable; the environment is simply too harsh. Similarly, an embryo’s environment is too harsh prior to a given point in development. – A human embryo is a unique individual of the human species and should therefore be treated as separate from its parents. (unique DNA, and separate body systems) – Responsiveness doesn’t matter: it would imply that anyone asleep, comatose, or drugged into unconsciousness could be treated as a non-human. Unless someone is given proper stimulus, they won’t wake up; the proper stimulus may be time, a poke, or something we do not yet understand.So I would have to agree with the earlier statement that saying abortion is allowable is foolish. The only argument that I’ve heard for abortion that holds any water is the one claiming that the embryo is transgressing another’s property (her body). I don’t see that this holds *much* water, however, because we know that it’s a temporary, unwillful position by the embryo.
I can’t see the difficulty. Once the egg and sperm allow another conciousness to enter that space and transform it, then it’s that new arriaval’s space. To say that developing person is not human is illogical. I don’t think there is any documented evidence of a woman giving birth to a a jellyfish, or VW beetle, or any other object alive or not that wasn’t distinctively human.
Obviously a sperm or an egg are in themselves, not human lives. If you can’t even figure that out, you should probably let the others do the commenting.
There is nothing obvious. Both sperm and eggs die, they exhibit a degree of independence. Both *could* end up as final human life. There isn’t a drawn line between life and not life. And do you have anything to add to the conversation besides the standard ad hominem and begging the question fallacies?
There is exactly a line drawn between a human life and not a human life. There is no question to beg.
And that line is?
You’re making broad statements without supporting them. Insert quarter, try again.
…already crossed when the woman finds she’s pregnant.
Just about every cell in the human body exhibits a degree of independence. That means nothing. So long as a sperm and an egg remain separated, they CANNOT become a human life. A fertilized egg can. It’s an obvious line. Why don’t you wait until next semester when you finish high school biology before you add your “contribution” to this conversation.
@Name withheld,
So who are you responding to? I think we all know about fertization of the womens egg by the males sperm. RG believes that life begins at conception when the egg is fertilized. Other people do not.
I’m responding to J. Murray who thinks that human life might begin even before conception with just the sperm or egg. I think we can all (except J. Murray) agree that the line is earliest drawn at conception.
A line drawn at conception would, IMO, be an incorrectly drawn line. So count me out of your list.
Reality is not something that’s up for a debate, democratic vote, or concensus. I also don’t appreciate you trying to put words in my mouth. I was speculating on potential points of the beginning of a human life. The Catholic Church has at points considered sperm and eggs to be living humans (masturbation was considered murder and in some sects of Christianity, it still is) and others don’t consider humans life at all (Soviet Union, North Korea, China). And between both extremes are a full range of beliefs. That alone makes the debate on abortion an impossible one to conclude.
If by everyone you mean yourself, then yes, “everyone” believes that life starts at conception. You don’t speak for the majority. There is no majority on the definition of the beginning of life. And if there was, it still wouldn’t matter as the point where life begins is an unproven concept.
J. Murray-
It’s quite simple. What happens when a sperm fertilizes an egg?
Stem RNA pairs and begins a mechanical process of cell mitosis. That doesn’t answer any questions. It’s not “quite simple” as you put it. Life still hasn’t been defined. A virus does the same thing, and yet it’s arguable that it isn’t alive at all.
Bale, “Line drawn” at the EARLIEST is what I stated which implies that other people do draw the line at a later point. Do you think the line can be drawn even earlier than that of conception (sperm alone or egg alone are living human beings)? Do you really want to defend the same ludicrous position J Murray is that such an idea is even an option?
@J Murray
Back before the mechanisms for human reproduction were known, yeah, people might have thought differently. But anyone who understands basic biology – and this includes people in any religion – knows that human life does not begin with the egg and sperm separated.
I did not say life begins at conception like you accused, only that that point is the earliest we can claim human life begins so shut the hell up and read what I actually said instead of whining that I put words into your mouth. You can’t even accuse correctly. I don’t know what is wrong with you damn kids today all shooting your mouth off when you get proven wrong.
[insert idiocy about the Soviets/Chinese/North Koreans not considering humans life at all] of course they do – they just don’t happen to value it as much. It’s not like the concept of life and death as they apply to humans somehow disappears in Communist countries.
@Name withheld,
““Line drawn” at the EARLIEST is what I stated which implies that other people do draw the line at a later point.”
Point taken. Looks like I misunderstood what you said.
“Do you think the line can be drawn even earlier than that of conception (sperm alone or egg alone are living human beings)?”
No. I don’t.
“Do you really want to defend the same ludicrous position J Murray is that such an idea is even an option?”
No. I do not want to defend that position. What I would defend is the position that the proper place to draw the line is the point at which the foetus can survive without having to be attached with a particular person, the mother. My position is that that is the point in time when it becomes a potential human being. Prior to that, it is biologically equivalent to a ‘parasite’ attaching itself to a host and deriving its nourishment from its host. Whether to see that ‘parasite’ as a boon to nourish or a bane to get rid of can only be decided by the host to whom the ‘parasite’ has attached itself, i.e., the woman herself.
“total freedom for abortion, pornography, prostitution, and all other forms of personal action that do not themselves aggress against the property of others” this statement can be seen as nothing less than absolute garbage. These are all crimes with victims that suffer, and the victimization goes far beyond the individuals involved in the initial act.
Wow. I really hate the edit option on this site. It doesn’t maintain spacing which kills readability. I won’t make that mistake again. :-/
Here’s that with proper spacing:
I see no reason that we wouldn’t make the assumption that we should err on the side of caution. If a person is non-responsive, do we not check for a pulse and breathing before taking their things? The fact that it may take the young one (regardless of birth status) several years or decades to ‘wake up’ in no way diminishes their self-ownership. We know the potential is there, so we mustn’t act as if it weren’t there.
To back up my thoughts, here are my assumptions:
– Life begins at conception. I used to believe it began after twinning is no longer possible, but that can’t hold water because I wouldn’t claim that a flatworm is not alive even though it can be twinned well into its adult life.
– Viability is a non-argument. If a person of any age was dropped in the middle of the ocean, the desert, or the moon, odds are they are non-viable; the environment is simply too harsh. Similarly, an embryo’s environment is too harsh prior to a given point in development.
– A human embryo is a unique individual of the human species and should therefore be treated as separate from its parents. (unique DNA, and separate body systems)
– Responsiveness doesn’t matter: it would imply that anyone asleep, comatose, or drugged into unconsciousness could be treated as a non-human. Unless someone is given proper stimulus, they won’t wake up; the proper stimulus may be time, a poke, or something we do not yet understand.
So I would have to agree with the earlier statement that saying abortion is allowable is foolish. The only argument that I’ve heard for abortion that holds any water is the one claiming that the embryo is transgressing another’s property (her body). I don’t see that this holds *much* water, however, because we know that it’s a temporary, unwillful position by the embryo.
“The only argument that I’ve heard for abortion that holds any water is the one claiming that the embryo is transgressing another’s property (her body).”
That one is fairly concrete, and it doesn’t hold any water. It was the mother’s actions, along with the father, that put the embryo there in the first place. You can’t yank someone onto your own property and then accuse them of trespassing.
Yes, you can invite people on to your property, get bored of them and then ask them to leave and if they don’t then they’re trespassing. Rothbard said the same thing for children – to force parents to raise children is to enslave them thus parents are free to reject them even if the children will die from the abandonment.
…and all other forms of personal action that do not themselves aggress against the property of others.
The one thing that libertarians agree on is the right to property. We also agree you can do what you want with your property with the implied concept of non-aggression as stated above.
We don’t get into discussions on the morality of what people do with their freedom/property. Why? It’s not part of libertarianism. Rothbard’s mention of abortion, in a list of other personal actions, is not worth comment. He has only stated the obvious. His personal views (unknown) on the subject are not important. Neither are yours or mine.
The only thing we need to agree on is that the state (or anybody) should not be able to force a decision one way or the other.
I concur.
Separate argument.
RG,
Not really…
The point is my opinion on abortion is, just that, an opinion. So is everyone else’s on this thread. This discussion has no more relevance than debating whether someone should smoke pot on their property, film porn on their property or dig a hole to China….on their property.
As individuals, we may have varying opinions on the above examples but seldom express them. In other words, libertarians are cognizant of that old school phrase-mind your own business.
Abortion is irrelevant to a libertarian discussion because it never gets past the non- aggression concept.
It goes like this: If I’m a Libertarian and …
I think drugs are bad for you…do I believe that you should go to jail for engaging in that activity…NO
I believe the porn industry is disgusting…do I believe people should be arrested for this activity….NO
I believe that having an abortion is morally wrong…do I believe that people should be imprisoned for this activity…?
If you answer NO to that last question, then abortion has no more relevance than digging a hole to China, porn, or drugs.
If you answer YES, to the last question, then we have something to talk about.
Good summary.
To your list, Dag, of digging a hole to China, porn, and drugs I would add suicide, blogging and watching television.
The authors statement on abortion is contradictory to the principle of self ownership. Once the egg is fertalized there is another “self” within the mothers body. If proximity is a justification for death of an individual the whole self ownership philosophy breaks down.
I think J. Murray is correct; there is simply no way to decide this issue short of a universally accepted definition of when the fetus becomes an individual with rights. Since that’s likely to never happen, and by far the largest number of abortion opponents in mainstream society tend to oppose it along religious lines, I can’t help but think the best default solution is to simply allow people to believe what they want and act accordingly. That means allowing women to get abortions if they so choose, so long as no one is forcing anyone who doesn’t agree with it to get an abortion.
And for the record, in response to a point made by Drigan, we DO deny the long-term unconscious / vegetables the right to self-ownership in that family has the right to “pull the plug”. Otherwise, you’re committing the family to expensive care for an unknown period of time. I don’t think it’s a good analogy for abortion, but just wanted to point out that there are situations where we allow cost / benefit analysis to decide issues of life and death regarding unconscious persons.
Interesting point, however the “pull the plug” option is only considered when it is deemed improbable that the person will ever gain consciousness, and only when people have gone to some effort to revive the comatose person. I don’t believe I’ve ever heard of someone having the plug pulled when they had a limited (albeit by years) period of time with greater than 50% odds of full recovery.
So at this point, I think my arguments would leave abortion as an option in the event that we had 100% medical certitude that the fetus had no potential for future higher brain activity.
I’ve asked this question here before and never gotten an answer: On what basis does anyone presume any right to tell anyone else to do or not do, even to the extreme of killing. Look at it from a different species viewpoint: The rabbit must outrun the wildcat to live. The wildcat must eat rabbit to live. Where’s the “right”?
Laws, rules, systems, governments, are always made to restrict someone else’s freedom to the advantage of the rule-maker. It’s still the old wildcat-rabbit game, but under a disguise as a “higher” form. Actually the only thing “higher” is the level of dishonesty.
Honestly, the only reasons that I can come up with are religious or social reasons. Almost by definition, a person who doesn’t respect society’s belief that killing people is wrong would be a sociopath. Sociopathy, in turn tends to result in ostracism of some sort. So I’m not sure what answer can be achieved by those that have no belief in a higher power than themselves, regardless of whether that higher power is a god or society.
For myself, I believe in both of those powers because I believe them to be logical, but you can believe what you wish to believe.
The old concept of a psychopath was someone who failed to learn from experience. But learning from experience is, I think, the essence of the wildcat-rabbit game. There is no such thing in the typical society as a prohibition against killing_only against killing under certain circumstances decided by the rule makers. I won’t even go into all the killing done for religion.
I wasn’t talking about a psychopath, but a sociopath. And I think you’ll have a hard time finding a society where killing someone is allowable unless that person has committed what they consider to be a particularly heinous crime.
I suspect you have something specific such as the crusades or the Spanish Inquisition in mind for the religious killings. If that’s the case, you may want to compare them to the killing done by those who aren’t religious of any sort. I believe that the non-religious are vastly in the minority, but still managed to rack up a win in the total death count. Particularly in the past century.
My psychological education was several decades back, so maybe I should check the dictionary, but I believe sociopath is just the newer name for psychopath, not that it matters much anyway.
In most modern societies killing is allowed for numerous reasons, for example, in war. A prisoner trying to escape can be killed. A burglar breaking into your home can be killed in many places.
As far as your comments about the non-religious, if you’re referring to Communism and Nazism, I believe they should be considered religions. I would apply that to any group with a fanatical devotion to a leader and believing in blindly obeying his authority.
Good grief Lee. You’ve never gotten an answer to that question, because it’s a silly question. Since man isn’t a rabbit or a wildcat; and since man is capable of inventing, producing and distributing computers and other devices that connect to a massive worldwide information network; and since man is also capable of communicating with other men on that network about such grandiose ideas as freedom, rights, life and property; I think it’s safe to say that comparing the interactions of man to wildcat chasing a rabbit is, well, it’s pretty silly.
When you can show me a wildcat wearing a rabbit hat, we can talk as if man and beast are on equal footing in this world.
Joshua_D, your objection is rooted in the assumption that among corporeal beings, a human being, and only a human being, is capable of being morally responsible for its actions. What you lack is something like evidence and a cogent argument to prove that it’s so.
So, no, not silly. In fact, silly is the straw man you erected with the phrase “as if man and beast are on equal footing in this world”. Lee suggested no such thing, and while his phrasing may leave something to be desired, I see no reason to assume that nonhuman animals cannot have moral responsibility. Nor even to suppose that all beasts, i.e. nonhuman animals, are on equal footing. (Do you believe that a chimp or a dog is on “equal footing” with a earthworm??)
No doubt this line of inquiry would rub the wrong way those humanists who are Abrahamists. Probably PETA’s activists, too, for their preoccupation is mainly sentimental. “Mercy for animals” they clamour but not “justice for nonhuman animals”, which would imply not only an obligation of humans to respect their legitimate interests, if any, but also an obligation on those nonhumans’ part to refrain from bad behavior toward humans, not to mention against nonhuman animals.
The problem of the rabbitt and the wildcat merits further investigation.
“What you lack is something like evidence and a cogent argument to prove that it’s so.”
What evidence, exactly, do you need to show that 1. only humans have morals and 2. only humans feel moral responsibility for their actions?
Why is that humans have courts of law to settle disagreement and enforce law? Do chimps and worms have some court of which I’m not aware? Why is that humans feel guilt about all sorts of things, which often include killing animals? I have never heard a squirrel or deer speak of the regret they have for causing a car crash, or seen remorse on the face of a bear who ate a camper.
And no, I don’t believe a chimp and an earthworm are on equal footing, what of it? The problem of the rabbit and the wildcat merits as much attention as the problem of the rabbit and the carrot – zero. I’m amazed that people seriously, with a straight face, look at the world, view the accomplishments of people – good and bad – and then go on to compare man with other animals.
Pretty simple, actually. If preventing someone from killing is a restriction of freedom, how much more of a restriction of freedom is killing itself, since it removes all of the victim’s freedom permanently?
Wildcats don’t kill other wildcats to survive. Humans don’t need to kill other humans to survive. Thus, the analogy breaks down.
Simple biology my friend.
there is an article by Rothbard that explains his position on abortion. The issue has nothing to do with whether the fetus is alive or not. A woman is the original owner of her property. This means that the fetus is either a guest within her body or an intruder. If she decides it to be an intruder then she has every right to remove it from her property.
This means that the fetus is either a guest within her body or an intruder. If she decides it to be an intruder then she has every right to remove it from her property.
Fortunately this is kind of a self-limiting attitude, killing your own offspring that is.
Why? Child abandonment was quite common throughout history?
No, Gil, child abondonment is quite common. Fortunately there are many wanting to care for the abandoned child. Preventing that trade to happen, the child wants to be cared for (crying is the proof) and someone else wants to care for it, is a violation of property rights.
So? You’re free to take in a wandering 5 year old boy who complains he was abandoned by his parents. But your are not to free to take him back to his parents and order them to take care of him any more than if the boy was 30 years old.
Good reply
That is still contradictory to the right of self ownership no matter how Mr. Rothbard wishes to rationalize it. The fetus, under the principle of self ownership, should have the same right to life as the host [mother] does.
Yeah, like someone is in her car that she wants out; except they’re only there because of her actions (outside of rape), and she won’t even slow down when throwing them out.
zach bush, suppose that the head is halfway out of the birth canal. Does the woman own the part still inside her body, but the child only the top half of its head?
Your libertarian logic, if correct, would have the child in possession of the right to exercise control over the top half of its head while denying it in practice any possibility of exercising control, for your mother’s doctor has just sliced off her portion of the head of the “intruder”.
Indeed, your theory of property has nothing to do with whether the child is alive or not.
I don’t see liberty or logic in his statements.
You might want to consider the words you use before assigning meaning to them.
Murray Rothbard was working from the right of abandoning a child. Hence if the women gives birth a child and leaves it in a dumpster to die then that’s her right in the same way a someone who refuses to saves a drowning person isn’t committing an offence.
Even Philadelphia’s Sunny gang wouldn’t let a dumpster baby die.
A rate of child abandonment does exist and many would say it’s quite high. But demand exists for the nuturing of these abandoned children. If someone prevents a child from accessing this demand, then that person is violating the property rights of the child.
They have every right to abandon the child, but not to prevent him or her from reaching care.
Any “system” that asserts a “right” to abandon children does not even earn the name of being an ethics.
Why?
So adoption practices should be outlawed?
Very funny, RG! “Abandoning” and “leaving in the care of someone else” are exactly the same thing, and if one is illegal, the other must be as well. Your witty mockery of libertarian fundamentalism is right on target.
“Any “system” that asserts a “right” to abandon children does not even earn the name of being an ethics.”
For once, I have to express some agreement with Gene Callahan. I do have a serious question though: who, exactly, is justified in forcing parents (of sufficient means) to care for their children? Me? You? Who?
What Beefcake said. Besides virtually all children are capable of caring for themselves at the age of seven.
How silly of me. Here I thought that the old cliche of leaving a baby on a doorstep was abandonment. You outfox me again, and with your uncanny sense of hyperbole to boot, Gene.
So, RG, are you being a jerk on purpose, or do you really think dropping a baby on a doorstep is a standard or legal adoption practice? That is illegal now, and should continue to be; contacting an adoption agency and *arranging* an adoption is not illegal now, nor should it be.
“Besides virtually all children are capable of caring for themselves at the age of seven.”
Gil, if you ever wondered why the libertarian presidential candidate captures perhaps 1% of the vote, and why 100 years from now, the libertarian candidate will still be capturing about 1% of the vote, just re-read your quote.
So Gene, who, exactly, is justified in forcing parents to care for their children?
I’ve only recently started studying Libertarian theory and Austrian economics, and I’d say I mostly agree with the basics both. But, like everything in this world, both have limits to their application, in my opinion.
The abortion issue is a good example of the limits of Libertarian theory. The Libertarian arguments that I’ve heard supporting abortion all seem flawed in their conclusions and their justifications. I don’t think this is a failure of Libertarian theory, but rather a failure of trying to apply that theory to every aspect of existence and every relationship of Man.
The relationship between two adults is different than the relationship between a mother and a child, or a father and a child. So, in my opinion, it seems that you have to judge those situations by a different standard.
Since a child, by it’s nature isn’t capable of supporting itself inside or outside the womb, you can’t reasonably claim that the child is free in the same sense an adult man is free. Since a child is conceived through the actions of two adults, then you can’t reasonably assume that the parents have the same responsibility to their child as they do to other adults that interact with through their life.
I’m surprise at how such clear and obvious distinctions and differences often get overlooked or brushed aside.
Abandonment of pets (especially as babies) is cruel too yet Libertarians would not allowed this practice either.
Joshua-D. If you don’t understand the importance of any endeavor being based on sound fundamentals I think you’re missing something very important. None of the things you mention have the slightest bearing on fundamentals. Does wearing a particular hat give you the right to make other peoples’ decisions? Does having an interesting little toy?
Most of the horrors in the world have come in the name of “Right”.
Lee, I do understand the importance of fundamentals. Your point, it seems to me, is to simply say that ‘Might makes right,’ but without the ‘right.’ Wildcat chases rabbit to live. Rabbit runs away from wildcat to live. One will live and one will not.
My point is that Man and animal are different, as evidenced by the fact that “man is capable of inventing, producing and distributing computers and other devices that connect to a massive worldwide information network; and since man is also capable of communicating with other men on that network about such grandiose ideas as freedom, rights, life and property; …” We can add also that man is capable of worldwide wars that kill millions, of genocides that kill millions, of civil wars that kill millions, etc. All the evidence of the world says that Man and animals are different.
So, I agree that we should understand fundamentals, but I disagree that we should ever start to base those fundamentals of how wild animals act vs. how men act.
I think Lee has an interesting point. It may seem silly on the surface, but there’s very real potentional in answering the question to exercise theory, and it’s appropriate that it’s on a Rothbard article because it would involve “natural rights”.
If we leave the religious aspect out of it, if mankind doesn’t have a unique “soul” which gives us inherent worth, then what DOES make us better than beasts? The fact that we can build things? Who made the decision that THAT would be the deciding factor? If we hold to the scientific view that mankind is a highly evolved animal, then at what point in that process did the species develop the “right” to life? I think Rothbard’s writings on “natural rights” could provoke a great discussion on the subject that Lee is bringing up.
The property relation between man and animal is the only interesting subject that can be gleaned from Lee’s absurd analysis.
I think that Jim and Lee are on the right track to look at fundamentals.Having read Rothbard’s article, he almost seems to distort his opponent. One sentence is revealing. He says “Randians persist in the right-wing myth that the antipode of individualism is communism, whereas the real antipode to liberty in America today is far different: the existing corporate-monopoly, welfare-warfare state.” This is very confusing to me. I’m sure that there’s a myth (in a true sense) about individualism opposing communism (to call it “right wing” is laughable), but it’s no less mythical than Rothbard’s antagonists. Both are based on assumptions about fundamentals, and we can never really know about the fundamentals. Whether you want to talk about natural rights, God’s law, or the will of animals, it all comes down to picking a belief that has no firm grounding but one in myth.
Communism is the extreme right in the classic political wing nomenclature. In post-revolution France, the left side of the house didn’t want to replace the all powerful monarchy with an all powerful assembly. The right side of the house did. Extreme left is full anarchy. Extreme right is 100% government control over everything. Thus ideals like Communism, Socialism, and Fascism occupy the right wing philosophy as they all expouse significant government control over society.
Left and right have nothing to do with the absence of the state. It is only differing opinions on how the state should be wielded. Your analysis is not a definition, it is an opinion. Treating it as more is quite humorous, but childish.
It’s not an opinion. At no point in history prior to the aftermath of the French Revoluion was the term Left or Right used to define politics. This is undisputable historic fact. The anti-government wing physically occupied the left side of the legislative assembly. That’s where the term originated. Rothbard was using the classic left-right dichotomy definition, not the way we use it today to mean Democrat vs Republican. The major parties in the Western world are all Right Wing. It’s better to define some sort of vertical scale within the right to define the methodology behind the desire for central power.
The government’s anti government wing? That sounds like codependency group therapy.
As a casual observer to what constitutes a “Libertarianism”, it seems that there is a “right-wing” (for the lack of a better word) that seems to:
1) advocate corporatism: the interest of the State and the corporation are one and the same. I had one blog exchange with a “Libertarian” who advocated greater government involvement (intrusion) to protect so-called “intellectual property”. I found his position surprising since I had believed that Libertarians wanted smaller government and did not believe in using the power of the State to deprive people of their rights.
2) Ayn Rand: The concept of “Objectivism” seems to boil down to whatever one wants to do, whenever they want to do it; is “acceptable”. Thus there are no real standards. The Libertarian “right” seems to have morphed “Objectivism” within the following context: “If I have economic power, I define what is right and wrong”“. Not only that but those with the economic power coerce the State to protect their interests. Thus, we see the belief that a “something” (like the X-Box), is never owned (only leased) by the consumer. Then, if the consumer does something not authorized by the manufacturer, the consumer has committed some sort of heinous crime and must be severely punished by the State.
Steve R.,
As a casual observer to what constitutes a “Libertarianism”…
There are basically two camps in libertarian dogma.
1) Minarchists who embrace some form of government (in the minimalist sense).
2) Anarcho-libertarians or anarcho-capitalists who believe in no government.Both embrace the concept of property rights and non-aggression.
My opinion is minarchists are just unevolved (or evolving) libertarians who have yet to work out the contradiction of non-aggression and government.
I would suggest in the future, when talking to a Libertarian, you ask them what type they are. If they are unable to answer with one of the choices (above), they most likely are not well defined in their thinking and their use of the term Libertarian is casual at best.
I’m sorry I have to reprint my comment…mises.org editing process is bullshit. (Spacing is important when communicating an idea.)
Steve R.,
As a casual observer to what constitutes a “Libertarianism”…
There are basically two camps in the libertarian dogma.
1) Minarchists who embrace some form of government (in the minimalist sense).
2) Anarcho-libertarians or anarcho-capitalists who believe in no government.
Both embrace the concept of property rights and non-aggression.
My opinion is minarchists are just unevolved (or evolving) libertarians who have yet to work out the contradiction of non-aggression and government.
I would suggest in the future, when talking to a Libertarian, you ask them what type they are. If they are unable to answer with one of the choices (above), they most likely are not well defined in their thinking and their use of the term libertarian is casual at best.
Just thought I’ll add 1 question to the abortion debate. By what yard-stick is anyone calling an embryo or a foetus “human life”? What is “human life” and how is a foetus “human life”? I think this is important because if it is not “human life”, one cannot talk of the “rights” of the foetus. Even from a libertarian approach, if a foetus is not “human life”, one cannot apply the self-ownership principle to it. So how does one argue that a foetus is “human life”?
Please expound and, like Grossman, do some more of your great advertising for Ayn Rand.
“Human life” is human life and a healthy foetus, like every healthy infant, has a body that is going to facilitate a long human life….if it is greatly assisted for many years by full-fledged adults. Ripping humans’ bodies apart, dropping them in toilets or leaving them out in the cold for too long ends human lives.
This always makes me think of Jack Nicholson. Like 97% or so of actors today, he tends to be an orthodox “progressive”, except in this case. Raised by his grandmother, as an adult he discovered that his “aunt” was actually his mother. The realization that if he had been conceived a few decades later than he had been his particular and wonderful human life would have almost certainly been snuffed out has caused him to think honestly a bit about the whole matter.
Good answer, in true brain dead monkey style.
Hey b-d-m,
Just adding.
If you care so much, take the foetus and bring it up. If you can’t, find someone else you can convince. If you can’t do that as well, stop telling me what’s right and what’s not and go back to your tree.
I thought it was a good answer. And as such from a Libertarian point of view it is a human life with rights. As the life is being developed into a child the mother is just a host. The child is not the mothers property but her responsibility. Since she (hopefully) engaged in sex she is responsible for her actions. As for the biological mother there is also a biological father. How can just one of the responsible parties decide to take the life? I believe the father has equal rights to the child. The mother when she became pregnant was not given any additional rights than she had prior. Her only obligation is to ensure that the “life” inside her is protected until birth. Then she and the father have the right to allow adoption or keep the child. So all you mothers out there you have a child with competeing rights. Get over it.
Thanks, Joe & Nate. I would have gone to bed a bit depressed with only this wayward soul’s strange tirades ringing in my ears.
I don’t think it was a good answer at all. The statement “it is a human life with rights” is nothing more than an assertion. It can’t be taken more sreiously.
” The child is not the mothers property but her responsibility.”
The key question is responsible to whom?
“As the life is being developed into a child the mother is just a host.”
I agree. The only point there is that the guest requires the consent of the host to reside in the host. Further, you need to define why you think the guest is a human with rights. That it has the 23 pairs of chromosomes or a partially developed circulatory or nervous system is not good enough.
“Her only obligation is to ensure that the “life” inside her is protected until birth.”
Once again, an assertion without a justification. Why does she have an obligation? Is it her body or is it not?
“So all you mothers out there you have a child with competeing rights.”
Sorry! You need to define the source of rights. I think it is rationality. You think it is existence (inferring it from your statements). I don’t think we can agree.
@Bala,
First let us define what I mean when I talk of “Rights.” I happen to agree with Ayn Rand’s definition. “Rights are a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context, that they are derived from man’s nature as a rational being and represent a necessary condition of his particular mode of survival. I shall remind you also that the right to life is the source of all rights, including the right to property.”
The developing child inside of the mother can never be her property. It is a separate life that she cannot own. The developing fetus is a separate body from the mothers. The only thing she can do as a responsible and rational being is provide what is necessary for the continual growth of the human life growing inside her. Now you are right, she does have a right over her own body. She could commit suicide and kill both herself and the human life inside her. Her death is her right but not the other living and growing body within her.
Where I differ from you is that when the egg is fertilized that begins human life, and that life has rights. Logically there are only two conditions within the human existence. Point A the beginning of life and point B the end of life. Any human being that forcefully kills this human life(unless in self defense) does not have the right to do so. They might do so but they don’t have the “right” to do so. I can go and kill someone but I don’t have the right to do so. It is not even a legal issue. It is a moral issue. It is not one of my freedoms of action being a rational human.
Since that is the case I see any women that aborts her child and ends the cycle of life cannot call herself a Libertarian. She consciously used force to end the life of another human being whether it is fully formed or 1 month in its development.
So it is her obligation to nurture this life that she and her male partner have created because if she understands rights that is the logical and rational thing to do.
With freedom and liberty comes responsibility. There is not such thing as a free lunch. Also, you didn’t comment on the fathers rights. Does the male sperm donor have any rights to the decision to abort or not? The father also has an obligation to and responsiblity towards this new life.
I personally don’t care what is good enough for you. You choose a point in the cycle of life and deem that now this is a human life with rights. I choose the point when life begins at conception and I know your point would never have been reached without conception and everything that occurred up to your point of recognition. Either you have life or you don’t. Some people pick a point further down the development phase. Barbara Boxer and company have no problem with crushing a childs head so it can be pulled out of the birth canal. Some children are aborted at a earlier stage. Some at this earlier stage removed from the mothers body and are still alive and die outside the womb. So I don’t twist logic and try to figure out when life should have rights.
Your statements are self contradictory. You cannot simultaneously say that you agree with Ayn Rand’s definition of “rights” and that rights stem from life.
“The developing child inside of the mother can never be her property.”
Absolutely.
“It is a separate life that she cannot own. ”
Absolutely.
“The developing fetus is a separate body from the mothers.”
Wrong. If it were only separate, the way a crocodile or a bird and its eggs are!! The developing human foetus harms the mother. It reduces her chances of survival on her own and makes her in turn dependent on support from others to go through with the pregnancy. The process of child-birth can even result in death or permanent disability for the mother. I am sure you too know of people who have died delivering a child or have become mildly or severely paralysed in the process. Carrying a child can even induce diabetes-like conditions in the mother’s body and bring harm to her. This is true not just of human mothers but of mothers in all mammalian species. So let’s not pretend that reality does not exist.
“The only thing she can do as a responsible and rational being is provide what is necessary for the continual growth of the human life growing inside her.”
Wrong. It is not the “only” thing she can do. It is the responsible thing to do if she wishes to go ahead with carrying the child in her womb. She has no obligation to carry a foetus which got lodged in her body on its own. Incidentally, the thing growing inside her is not a human life. It is a human foetus.
” Her death is her right but not the other living and growing body within her.”
Removing a parasite that has latched on to her is her right as well.
“Any human being that forcefully kills this human life(unless in self defense) does not have the right to do so.”
I agree. However, where I do not agree is in the claim that a foetus is human life. A foetus is a parasite, plain and simple. It is a parasite of a much higher order than a child which can at least survive outside of a host.
“Where I differ from you is that when the egg is fertilized that begins human life, and that life has rights.”
This is where I differ too. Your definition of human life is contradictory with the definition of “human” that forms the basis of Ayn Rand’s definition of individual rights (which you said you agree with).
“Since that is the case I see any women that aborts her child and ends the cycle of life cannot call herself a Libertarian.”
Not if we do not consider the foetus to be human life or even potential human life.
“She consciously used force to end the life of another human being whether it is fully formed or 1 month in its development.”
Wrong. She rid herself of a “parasite” that was causing her harm.
“You choose a point in the cycle of life and deem that now this is a human life with rights.”
That’s because “human” means something specific. A bunch of cells that share the biochemistry of a human does not become a human.
“I choose the point when life begins at conception and I know your point would never have been reached without conception and everything that occurred up to your point of recognition.”
Bad choice is all I have to say. It leads to a number of contradictory positions. Makes no sense.
” Either you have life or you don’t.”
Either it is a human life or it isn’t. You argument is shifting from “the source of rights is human life” to “the source of rights is life”. I hope you are aware of the shift.
“So I don’t twist logic and try to figure out when life should have rights.”
But you do drop key words and then use the same skeleton of an argument to bolster a flawed position. I do not drop the word “human” and talk of when “life” should have rights.
By your logic Joe, Libertarians cannot oppose the Welfare State because everyone needs a lifeline of support should they need it and that to let a person die from lack of help is a violation of rights.
> By what yard-stick is anyone calling an embryo or a foetus “human life”?
* Has unique DNA
* Separate circulatory system
* Separate nervous system.
At conception when you combine DNA and begin the growth of a new being is the logical separation between ‘Father’, ‘Mother’, and ‘Offspring’. At that point it’s even physically separate from the mother as it’s floating in fluids. Later on in the life cycle (about a week later) is were it re-attaches back to the mother to gain sustenance via the placenta. The placenta carefully keeps the blood from the child separate from the mother. Nutrients and oxygen are leached through the thin walls of the placenta.
Prior to re-attachment, of course, the Zygote can be removed (or fertilization of the egg can happen in a lab) and placed in another ‘mother’, or even quite possibly a artificial ‘womb’ until the new being can become viable outside of it’s protection.
If your willing to believe that we are separate living entities from our parents and that there is a solid line separating us from them then that is were it’s most logically drawn. As long as your able to get past the point were you believe that life is something that exists, and can agree that we are separate beings, then religion or dogma does not even enter into it… it can be a purely scientific observation.
Does having a unique DNA, a separate circulatory system or a separate nervous system mean that the being has rights? What are rights and where do they originate from?
I would argue that a foetus is potential human life, with the emphasis on “potential’. It is not human life, at least not yet. Once can only call it human life when it has developed the key faculty that distinguishes humans from other species – the rational faculty. A foetus is potential human life just as much as a child is.
In any case, why is the mother obligated to provide sustenance to the foetus? Anyone making such a demand is forcing their choices and preferences on the mother. My argument would be the same one that I told mpolzkill – if you care so much, take responsibility for the foetus and provide the sustenance yourself. You could even compensate the mother for holding the foetus and adopt the child once it is born. It just costs the money and takes the will. “Put your money where your mouth is” is all one can say. Anything more is, IMO, fascism.
“if you care so much, take responsibility for the foetus and provide the sustenance yourself. You could even compensate the mother for holding the foetus and adopt the child once it is born”
And infants, and toddlers? More “fascism” to disapprove of biological mothers choosing to snuff them out as well?
Yes absolutely. If younguns lived in a world where they could be abandoned by their parents as soon as they got too troublesome then they’d all be little angels.
Brain dead as usual. You just don’t seem to be able to see the difference between removal of life support that in itself belongs to the person withdrawing it and actual killing. How convenient it must be to misuse words to bolster your propaganda.
[Sigh] Why don’t you just tell us exactly what you’re for and against? Many foetuses can be removed without killing them. On the other side, if a biological mother who decides she is no longer obligated to her child does not arrange to have someone else take care of her infant or toddler it will surely die. What are you for or against?
* rolls eyes *
[SIGH] Why the F should I tell YOU anything at all? Brain dead monkey that you are, you are sure to mangle it all out of shape in any case.
“On the other side, if a biological mother decides she is no longer obligated to her child does not arrange to have someone else take care of here infant or toddler it will surely die.”
So what? Is the life-support she is withdrawing hers or is it not?
And this
“What are you for or against?”
proves that you are indeed a brain dead monkey.
Talking of infants and toddlers, go ahead and adopt them as well. It’s even easier than it is with foetuses. You do not need the biological mother to provide the sustenance.
And if they can not find anyone who wants their child, they may leave them to starve or freeze?
Why is it the parents’ obligation to provide for them? Rather, why is it alright for anyone at all to force them to provide for the infants and toddlers? Frankly, the second one is the real question.
“What are you for or against?”
Alright, [phew], what is your opinion of biological mothers who let their children die?
“why is it alright for anyone at all to force them to provide…”
No one ever said a word about forcing them, so you can drop it.
Imagine a pilot [if you would]. If he invites someone to take a flight with him, what would your opinion of him be if he all of a sudden decided he’d had enough of their company and threw them out of the plane?
Your plane analogy is false because in one case you are talking of people and in the other, you are not. Foetuses are not people.
That apart, your attempt at sidelining the real issue is downright hilarious. The argument is not the moral soundness of abortion but the soundness of anti-abortion laws and preventing people from going in for abortions voluntarily.
Right now people can legally disown adult children and abandon them to their fate. If the adult child ends up dead because they’re not “street smart” then the parents face no charges whatsoever.
By such reasoning, mpolz & co., you cannot therefore oppose the welfare state – no one ought to abandoned to their death hence everyone should be able to access basic payment to buy the necessities.
I take it then you believe that until something is able to pass a IQ test then it’s alright to kill it. I wonder who gets to decide on that test. I think that’s rather insane and pretty damn convenient way of thinking; If it’s stupid then kill it if you don’t like it.
Because she took the actions necessary to create it, unless she was raped. I don’t think it’s immoral to expect people to live up to their obligations as human beings and that there are consequences to people’s actions.
There are a LOT of people out there that would love to take care of a mother in exchange for getting the opportunity to adopt the offspring. Not everybody who wants a child is capable of creating one on their own and often are willing to spend a tremendous amount of money and effort to get one.
I don’t see why any of this gives you the justification to kill anybody, though.
Oh and I never said anywhere were I believe it’s right for me to force anybody to do anything.
I think anti-abortion laws are one of those things we have to give up in order to live in a truly free society. Rules like that I up to people to decide on there own and in small groups, not across a entire continent.
I just hope that people realize how ignorant and wrong it is and learn. I think that it’s a tragedy that so many people are lied to by so many and by themselves into thinking that life is merely a “fleshy growth” that can be disposed of until it learns to communicate with you.
In a enlightened society none of this would even be a question. It’s a horror.
Abandoning someone to which they’ll probably die is not the same as killing them. Unless Libertarians are going to charge people with killing for not intervening when someone needed it, e.g. not saving a drowning man, not stopping a toddler from running onto a busy road, just calling the emergency number and nothing else when someone else has stopped breathing, etc.
> Abandoning someone to which they’ll probably die is not the same as killing them.
Yes it is.
If I take you out on a boat into the ocean, tell you to go swimming, and then drive off into the sunset to let you drown, am I not guilty of something when you drown a few hours later?
Also abortion is not the same as abandoning somebody. It’s not like the mother forgot to keep a child alive or something.
If your thinking about a previous post I made about the Greeks and whatnot, when they left a child to die in the wilderness they were intentionally killing it. They just were confused into thinking that somehow not seeing the child when it died absolved them of their actions in some what.
> Yes it is.
Well not always, of course.
Abandoning somebody when you know your actions is going to lead directly to their deaths is the same as killing them. Abandoning somebody at the bar because they are acting like jerks is not the sort of thing I was talking about.
And it’s still not the same as abortion anyways.
“Abandoning somebody when you know your actions is going to lead directly to their deaths is the same as killing them.”
X is struggling in a storm while in the middle of an ocean. Along comes Y in a small boat and throws a rope out to X. X starts pulling and threatens to topple the boat. Y, assessing that his own life is in danger, lets go of the rope. Has Y killed X? Your logic says ‘Yes’. Mine says ‘ridiculous’.
“Along comes Y in a small boat”
Very dishonest. X made Y and attached him to the boat. You think (I guess, since you won’t answer), that since Y relies on X, X can destroy (doesn’t like “kill”, more dishonesty) Y. When and why is not OK with you? When Y demonstrates to you that he can think? Sooner? When? Why?
” X made Y and attached him to the boat. ”
Downright stupid. In the case of a foetus, X neither made Y nor attached him to the boat. So, your attempt to draw a likeness is worse than laughable.
That’s what sex is if you’re not careful: making babies. They don’t spawn from the ether, you make them through sex.
Attempt no. 47: Is there a point, *in your opinion*….ah, I’ve hit the wall. Goodbye, you sad, sad, strange little man,
“That’s what sex is if you’re not careful: making babies.”
Looks like you can’t distinguish an action from the consequences of the action or the intended consequences from the unintended. Probably a consequence of the death of the brain.
And I am not dying to talk to you. Go back to your tree and stay right there.
That’s what manslaughter is if you’re not lucky, firing a loaded gun randomly.
Outside of rape, two people make babies through their choices, dishonest person. You probably have a dog in this fight because you promote extreme and misinformed selfishness, I have a dog in it because I wish to discredit your philosophy in the eyes of any third parties.
If you and someone else are walking alone in the woods, your companion collapses, and you watch him die without so much as lifting a finger, then you’re a dick but not a murderer. If you carry a baby into the woods, lay him down and walk away and he dies, then you are a murderer.
So is it OK if a person abandons a child in the middle of a fair where there are a lot of people?
” Outside of rape, two people make babies through their choices, dishonest person. ”
Ha Ha Ha!! I wouldn’t know if I am dishonest, but you are truly hilarious. Babies are not “made”. They happen. If they were “made”, you wouldn’t have childless couples seeking fertility treatment.
Put another way, babies happen because of the choices people make. Included in these choices is that of having sex, but the act in itself does not “make” babies nor is “making babies” the sole purpose of having sex. Now!!! Who’s the one who seems to know precious little about sex? ROFLMAO
“You probably have a dog in this fight because you promote extreme and misinformed selfishness”
As usual, your dead brain gets it all wrong. I am just saying that there is no issue of “rights” involved. That’s my only dog. I have told you before that my personal opinion in this matter is of no consequence (though I have stated my opinion in no uncertain terms). Try your best to discredit me. I couldn’t care less and your antics don’t bother me one bit. You’ll just be the (brain dead) monkey on my back.
Incidentally, nice oxymoron out there – “extreme and misinformed selfishness”.
My firing of the loaded gun at random MADE many people very hurt and upset. You have always had the toughest time with words, you want to lock them with the connotations that serve you. Common, the main source of the lie.
Get over yourself. You and Rand share many repulsive and dangerously stupid ideas about human life, I like for you to expound on them and have *you* discredit yourself and her in the eyes of others, just as she always did when talking outside of her cult.
Do monkeys have dreams? Especially after they are brain-dead? Wake up and smell the coffee!!
You really do have a point, your foghorn of a voice *is* numbing. I can actually feel the life being sucked out of me as I read the droppings of your fully unleashed ego. Gonna stop again.
I remember once this supergenius here was mocking Shakespeare. My vague hope is that some 14-year-old will read this whole thread and say, “What a disturbed specimen! What happened to him? I think I’ll read Shakespeare instead of this Rand novel my big brother gave me.”
Just hoping for a more human world instead of the one made by totalitarians, or a brave new one made by their stunted and ill-informed victims.
There is no “killing”. There is only removal of life-support that belongs to the person removing the life-support.
They put them on the “life-support”.
False. The life-support was taken without prior consent.
So if your saying that if I have somebody who depends on me for protection/food/shelter then it’s alright for me to kill them in order to remove my burden?
Do you know what sex is?
I don’t. Will you teach me, O exalted one?
Seek help, Bala.The plane analogy *is* close.
They “will” be people if you don’t kill them.I’m not trying to sidetrack anything, you asked questions I answered them the best I could.
I don’t think it’s a legal issue, I guess that means I can’t talk about this then. OK.
Oh, but you are fine with abandoning chidren to die, right, Randian?
“The plane analogy *is* close.”
The plane analogy is nonsense. The passengers come on board on the promise that the people running the airplane will do their best to take them safely from Point A to Point B. No such promise or commitment exists when a foetus comes and lodges itself in the womb of a woman.
“They “will” be people if you don’t kill them.”
Once again, no one is killing them. Only the life-support taken without prior consent of the owner of the life-support is being withdrawn.
” I answered them the best I could ”
As best as you could. Good point and a frank admission.
” Oh, but you are fine with abandoning chidren to die, right, Randian? ”
This is downright hilarious. Wherever did I say I am fine? What I am fine with has nothing to do with this discussion. If someone else decides to do it, I have no business to stop them from doing so. That’s all I am saying. Is that too difficult to follow? Probably, if one is a brain dead monkey.
Hey mopskill,
As per Rothbard, I am not a Randian. And how’s the tree? Comfortable, I hope.
“I take it then you believe that until something is able to pass a IQ test then it’s alright to kill it.”
I haven’t spoken of killing. Only of “rights”. You are inserting the word “killing” into the discussion.
I thought we were talking about abortion here. Killing is defined by the subject.
No. It’s not defined by the subject. Abortion is not killing. You are insisting that it is and I am disagreeing with you.
“There are a LOT of people out there that would love to take care of a mother in exchange for getting the opportunity to adopt the offspring. Not everybody who wants a child is capable of creating one on their own and often are willing to spend a tremendous amount of money and effort to get one.”
I agree. Let’s leave it to the market to decide and have no anti-abortion laws. That’s all my point it. Let those who believe it should not be done be free not to do it. Let those who believe it is OK also be free to do it. Anything more is, IMO, fascism.
“There are a LOT of people out there that would love to take care of a mother in exchange for getting the opportunity to adopt the offspring. ”
Those who do are probably outnumbered 100 to 1 since most people who complain about such a situation rarely want to do anything personally about it but use force of government.
Oops! That was a reply to nate-m.
> Those who do are probably outnumbered 100 to 1 since most people who complain about such a situation rarely want to do anything personally about it but use force of government.
“Most People” believe that government is justified for a wide variety of reasons. They think we need government for food, for housing, for defense against terrorism, and against ‘evil monopolies’. Going to the government as a solution to solve a sticky situation or moral hazard is the kneejerk reaction for just about 90% of everybody out there.
It’s like saying that since most people believe we need government to have a healthy economy then it’s stupid and pointless to want a healthy economy.
Would fertile women agree in advance to suffer punishment for having an abortion? Perhaps a few, but even those who oppose abortion would, rationally, refuse to sign such an agreement. It does nothing to further the woman’s self-interest.
Well, I don’t like the idea of abortion one bit. I reckon it is a terrible tragedy if someone is in the position where this proceedure is a “solution” to their situation. Still, I’d not force a woman not to have an abortion.
Anyway, that aside, is this fundamentally a question of morality or is it one of individual rights or is there another approach needed to evaluate it?
Sione
“Well…”
Yes, tragedy is the right word.
“Still…”
Me either.
“?”
I don’t know, I think it’s a mental health issue. Family, church and community in decline, mental health in decline, lots of poor parenting, lots of casual sex, lots of abortion.
I suspect that even the question whether it is a tragedy or not is left only to the person making the choice. Legally, I see no issue because there is only 1 person whose “rights” are involved – the mother. As far as the foetus is concerned, the legal treatment has to be the same as in the case of abandonment of children. I think the same goes for the moral treatment as well.
-Sione, I’m keeping out of what has turned into an abortion debate here. I just wanted to say I just found your last post in the other thread today, and thanks for the info. How right your Grandfather is! Wish I could go and enjoy before it changes. What a life!
Lee
If you get the opportunity to visit you are spoiled for choice. You can see the Yasawas in Fiji by sailboat- take a fortnight and just wander about. Then there is Savaii in Samoa. Then there is Vava’u, Tonga (very excellent fishing) or how about seeing Aitutaki in the Cooks?
If you want to stay within US territory try American Samoa (fly into Pago Pago from Hawaii) where you can stay at the Rainmaker (don’t be expecting 5-star perfection, nevertheless it is enjoyable- a colourful place) before heading off to explore (you will definately not be disappointed and likely will have received some good tips from the denizens at the hotel). While there do not miss out sailing over to Aunu’u (which apart from being beautiful has an interesting archeological site where the early settlers used pottery to store and handle foodstuffs- later abandoned as not suited to local use). The Republic of Samoa is only a boat trip away (or you can take the plane if feeling less adventurous). Stay at famous Aggie Grey’s or even at Tusitala down the road (not as famous or historic as Aggie’s but it is named for Robt Louis Stevenson all the same). Head off to explore from there. Also try Vailima beer.
There are so many more, but whatever you do make certain you get over before it changes forever.
Sione
Correction. Should be Manu’a to go over to if you are interested in the original settlment of the Islands rather than Aunu’u (although it’s not a bad place to see).
I don’t know why this went into moderation. So I am posting it again.
“The plane analogy *is* close.”
The plane analogy is nonsense. The passengers come on board on the promise that the people running the airplane will do their best to take them safely from Point A to Point B. To make matters more clear, the passengers were people before they entered the plane. No such promise or commitment exists when a foetus comes and lodges itself in the womb of a woman. Neither is the foetus a person before it enters and gets lodged on the wall of the uterus.
“They “will” be people if you don’t kill them.”
Once again, no one is killing them. Only the life-support taken without prior consent of the owner of the life-support is being withdrawn.
” I answered them the best I could ”
As best as you could. Good point and a frank admission.
” Oh, but you are fine with abandoning chidren to die, right, Randian? ”
This is downright hilarious. Wherever did I say I am fine? What I am fine with has nothing to do with this discussion. If someone else decides to do it, I have no business to stop them from doing so. That’s all I am saying. Is that too difficult to follow? Probably, if one is …… you know what.
“life-support is being withdrawn.”
That could mean a doctor ripping the body apart or removing alive what will be a person the second it gets away from this unfortunate biological mother. OK, you’re not for or against anything, except what you see in to be in your self interest, so everything other people do ooutside of what you can calculate is OK with you. If this is true, I don’t understand why you’re so dishonest and angry about all of this.
” That could mean a doctor ripping the body apart or removing alive ”
It could, but does not necessarily have to be so. You’re clutching at straws. It makes you sound all the more hilarious. Keep at it. I am here for the laughs.
” OK, you’re not for or against anything, except what you see in to be in your self interest ”
When did I ever deny this? No one who denies it can and should ever claim to be an Objectivist.
” so everything other people do ooutside of what you can calculate is OK with you ”
It works on “principle”, you see. If there are people involved, it is a matter of violation of rights. If not, it is solely a moral issue and a matter of personal choice. I have nothing to do with it and would be infringing on another person’s rights. Why is this so difficult to comprehend?
” I don’t understand why you’re so dishonest and angry about all of this. ”
It is true and I am being neither dishonest nor angry about it. I am just saying that before you talk of “rights” confirm that you are talking of people.
But there was a contract. The mother contracted with the father to grant a third person a body. The fetus is neither hers nor his, but the young person’s.
You are just letting your imagination run riot. The woman only consents to having sex with the man and permitting him to leave his body fluids inside her. The foetus has no place in this consensual process. The “young person” did not even exist and was probably not even on the minds of the two adults at that time.
Once again into moderation…
” That could mean a doctor ripping the body apart or removing alive ”
It could, but does not necessarily have to be so. You’re clutching at straws. It makes you sound all the more hilarious. Keep at it. I am here for the laughs.
” OK, you’re not for or against anything, except what you see in to be in your self interest ”
When did I ever deny this? No one who denies it can and should ever claim to be an Objectivist.
” so everything other people do ooutside of what you can calculate is OK with you ”
It works on “principle”, you see. If there are people involved, it is a matter of violation of rights. If not, it is solely a moral issue and a matter of personal choice. I have nothing to do with it and would be infringing on another person’s rights. Why is this so difficult to comprehend?
” I don’t understand why you’re so dishonest and angry about all of this. ”
It is true and I am being neither dishonest nor angry about it. I am just saying that before you talk of “rights” confirm that you are talking of people.
Bala, mpolzkill, and others
It is very disillusioning to watch people, I have such great respect for, grind it out over an issue that is not libertarian in nature but one of personal choice.
Some observations:
Discussions on topics like abortion lead to what I call property rights absurdism-trying to define property where it is not definable.
What’s really absurd though, is how many males (I’m guessing 100%) are willing to comment on a decision … a woman makes.
Even more absurd is failing to embrace the concept of inference and grab semantics as a point of discussion. As we see here, the article is about the evolution of libertarianism from an early 70’s perspective. Yet, someone (RG) decided to embrace a word “abortion”, take it out of context, and proceed to start a bar fight.
If I was a bar owner, I’d throw his ass out.
I couldn’t agree more with you on this. I too was trying to make the same point – that it is a matter of personal choice and that there are no issues of rights involved. And your point
“What’s really absurd though, is how many males (I’m guessing 100%) are willing to comment on a decision … a woman makes.”
is absolutely spot on. I (male that I am and fitting into your 100%) wanted to make the same point. It is absolutely important to see it from the woman’s perspective and understand the importance of the personal choice involved. I am quite sure that every woman who has an abortion goes through it with a lot of doubt and asking the question “Am I doing the right thing?”. I am also quite certain that the question troubles the woman for many years, maybe all her life. I agree that one should not add the label “murderer” to make the pain unbearable.
It’s very easy for a man who can always walk away from the responsibility very easily to make loose statements. Failure to see the woman’s perspective always leads to statements bordering on the insane.
The topic of abortion is libertarian in nature. If the fetus is a human life, then it’s clearly being aggressed against in an abortion. If the fetus is not a human life, then the mother is being aggressed against if force is used to prevent her from getting an abortion. Personal choice isn’t the issue, aggression is.
When RG took the word “abortion” it was in context – maybe not on topic – but it wasn’t some issue of semantics. Glad you aren’t the bar owner.
Your analysis is wrong for a very simple reason that abortion is only withdrawal of life-support that belongs to the woman concerned. It does not even matter whether the foetus is a human life or it isn’t. The foetus does not have a right to its life support just as a child or a toddler does not have a right to parental care. There is therefore no aggression involved. That brings the issue right back in the area of personal choice that Dagnytg mentioned.
And your analysis is wrong since any way you phrase it, if a fetus is a human life then it can be aggressed against. You might think it is a simple withdrawal of life-support but it is just as easily argued that abortion is a violent action against that person. Therefore aggression is involved.
A child and toddler might not have right to parental care, but they have the right not to be cut into pieces or doused with burned with saline solution etc.
Way to FAIL again.
‘And your analysis is wrong since any way you phrase it, if a fetus is a human life then it can be aggressed against.’
I never said it “can’t” be aggressed against. I just said that abortion per se is not a form of aggression.
“You might think it is a simple withdrawal of life-support but it is just as easily argued that abortion is a violent action against that person.”
Please explain how the withdrawal of the life-support is an aggression against that ‘person’ (assuming it is a person we are talking of. In any case, I do not agree with that)
“A child and toddler might not have right to parental care, but they have the right not to be cut into pieces or doused with burned with saline solution etc.”
This question may stem from my ignorance of the actual process of abortion and the possibilities therein. Please explain how abortion necessarily involves cutting into pieces or being doused and burned with saline solution.
Further, my position is that the person who needs to decide whether the foetus is a welcome resident or an unwelcome ‘parasite’ is the mother. Her decision is final and cannot be questioned by anyone else. So, any attempt to demonstrate that abortion is aggression ignores the point that a mother who views the foetus as an unwelcome ‘parasite’ is the party who has been aggressed against and hence that the action of removing the foetus is retaliatory and not initiation.
Your and my opinion in this matter is absolutely irrelevant.
And obviously others disagree with you in thinking abortion is not a form of aggression. Abortion as often practiced does involve processes, e.g. saline injection or dissection, we would consider aggression if carried out against, say, a child. Cutting off life support would be doing something like severing the umbilical cord and letting the fetus miscarry or perhaps scraping the embryo off the uterine wall but these are not the methods employed in abortion (although indirectly in case of the pill).
You think her decision is final and cannot be questioned but that’s only your opinion. It is somewhat relevant because to your opponent, you are sanctioning murder. Some opinions are better than others so opinions DO matter as much as you think they don’t.
“Abortion as often practiced does involve processes, e.g. saline injection or dissection, we would consider aggression if carried out against, say, a child.”
If you read one of my other posts, you will see that I have addressed this point too. The basis of my argument is that I do not consider the foetus to be human life or potential human life. So any argument based on “rights” does not apply to it. A foetus has no rights. It is very simply a “parasite” that plonks itself in the body of a human being, draws nourishment from that human being and grows into a potential human being. Action taken to remove that parasite cannot be called aggression. If you insist, I would disagree strongly.
And yes…… I am saying it is a matter of opinion. So you too cannot say for sure that I am wrong
It’s not about sanctioning “murdering” but the ejection of a trespasser. If Catholics and co. were willing to pay for the foetus to be transferred to an artificial womb (should one exist) then they should be willing to pay for it.
However take a look again at Murray Rothbard’s position on children:
http://mises.org/daily/2568
“No man can therefore have a ‘right’ to compel someone to do a positive act, for in that case the compulsion violates the right of person or property of the individual being coerced. Thus, we may say that a man has a right to his property (i.e., a right not to have his property invaded), but we cannot say that anyone has a ‘right’ to a ‘living wage,’ for that would mean that someone would be coerced into providing him with such a wage, and that would violate the property rights of the people being coerced. As a corollary this means that, in the free society, no man may be saddled with the legal obligation to do anything for another, since that would invade the former’s rights; the only legal obligation one man has to another is to respect the other man’s rights.”
“Finally as Evers points out, suppose that we consider the case of a person who voluntarily rescues a child from a flaming wreck that kills the child’s parents. In a very real sense, the rescuer has brought life to the child; does the rescuer, then, have a binding legal obligation to keep the child alive from then on? Wouldn’t this be a ‘monstrous involuntary servitude that is being foisted upon a rescuer?’[9] And if for the rescuer, why not also for the natural parent?”
Yeah, that’s the basis of your argument – a basis that many reject with good reason. Not saying your reasons aren’t good either but that both sides have enough good points to make this less than clear cut. You realize that if the basis of your argument is wrong and the basis of your opponent’s argument is right, that has disastrous implications for your own conclusions.
I’m not saying you are definitely wrong – only what appeared to be your defense of J. Murray’s stupidity.
@Gil
Do you weigh intention into whether something is an act of aggression? Is a driver that mistakenly pulls into your driveway a trespasser that may be shot? It would be more libertarian then to simply cut the umbilical cord and remove the fetus to let it starve unlike what is currently done which – if the fetus is a human – is clearly an act of aggression.
You do realize that there are a lot of families who employ surrogate mothers and fly all around the world spending thousands in order to have a child right? An artificial womb would be a great invention now that you bring it up.
“Yeah, that’s the basis of your argument – a basis that many reject with good reason.”
The “good” in the “good reason” is your opinion and nothing more. In my opinion, it is a fairly ridiculous reason. To claim that a being that has to latch on and parasite on another is a human being sounds fairly ridiculous to me.
“You realize that if the basis of your argument is wrong and the basis of your opponent’s argument is right, that has disastrous implications for your own conclusions.”
This knife cuts both ways. I consider the basis of your argument laughable and contradictory to libertarian principles. What do we do about it?
Is it completely unreasonable? No. It might not be a good enough reason but the reasons you hear from the fetus = human crowd do give some pause for thought say, versus those of the flat earth society.
I’m not making that argument so what’s laughable is your suggestion that there’s a problem besides your own closed mindedness.
If the opposite of closed-mindedness is to accept any idea though I may feel it is garbage, leave me alone with my closed-mindedness.
Frankly, Ayn Rand was right on this. The word “open-minded” is a horrible word badly misused.
No, the opposite of closed mindedness isn’t mindless acceptance of anything – but a recognition of possible truth in what others have to say that is not in lockstep with your own small world.
@name withheld,
The opposite of closed-mindedness is not open-mindedness. What you are missing is that being open to listen does not guarantee agreement. I listened, analysed your argument and rejected it. That’s not closed-mindedness. What you are asking for is mindless acceptance of what you say which I should acknowledge that I am not capable of.
I’ve made no argument except to say that a sperm and an egg is not and cannot possibly be a human being. You’ve already admitted you accept my position but if you have decided to reject it and be an idiot like J Murray, fine.
I was referring to your argument that the foetus is a person. I had earlier accepted your argument that human life does not start with the sperm and the egg. That does not mean I accept this further argument of yours that seems to imply that human life starts at conception.
I did not argue a fetus was a person. Again you have misread what I stated. Neither did I ever imply that by accepting that an individual sperm/egg not being a person somehow meant you accepted a fetus is a person as well.
You really need to stop making a habit of jumping to conclusions. Especially when they come from arguments that were not made.
Sorry Dag. Maybe people here are only supposed to talk about what should or should not be enforced, but there is a large world outside of that. The owners of this “bar” can throw us out if they want. I still think this is all in the liberty ballpark though. I put it to you that you’re going to see a world of more liberty if more people respect all life and potential life and life creating acts. I mean revere, with a sense of mystery and humbleness towards the unknown.
Are you OK with Jack Nicholson talking about the decisions his mother and grandmother made? Are you OK with women making comments about a man who makes a firm decision that his girlfriend should have gotten rid of that “lump” and he’s not going to give her a dime for the next 20 years or so? Of course women can talk about irresponsible men and men can talk about irresponsible women.
This is also about dishonesty, I see Bala talking about lines; again, I don’t think he has answered where the line is. [Getting nasty inevitably here] I think someone asked about “partial birth abortion”, no answer. There is a lot of dishonesty. Almost everyone but those even more monstrous than Bala (even he is a *potential* human being though, haha] knows there is something very wrong about the whole thing. I knew a disturbed girl who wanted to take home her “lump” of organic material in a jar. Horrified stares from the medical technicians (slap the “do no harm” hat back on), “no you can’t do that”. When you can watch abortions on the medical channel, just like when we can watch all the results from Obama’s drones in “Afpak”, then you’ll know we’re truly and fully in our Brave New World.
I don’t know the exact timing, but I’ll give you a principle. The line is simply when the new entity can (biologically speaking) exist as a living entity independent of its mother, i.e., when it stops being the equivalent of a “parasite”. That means when it is born. Until then, it is not potential human life. Even after it is born, it is only a potential human being. So, it gets only the right not to be subject to deliberate harm. Nothing else. Definitely not the right to a sustenance. Even less so a right to sustenance that places an obligation on the parents to provide it.
I’m sure the world will enjoy your reinvented wheel, well sleazy guys sure love it.
ROFLMAO.
Go back to your tree.
Bala, how is it the equivalent of a “parasite” when it was placed into its circumstance by the “host” without its consent?
It was not placed into its circumstance by the “host”. That apart, it does not even have the ability to give its consent, even if asked. So on both counts, your question seems invalid or ill-directed. In fact, one can even say it announces its presence only AFTER it gets lodged. Until then, the host has no way of knowing what’s going to hit her.
The best one can say is that it happens and then it gets lodged.
mpolzkill,
I am not unsympathetic to your view or that of others.
I wouldn’t throw you out of my bar because you wouldn’t come in and start a fight.
You would have respect for my business, my patrons, and me. I believe this to be true of most of the people who have commented. It is respect for the patrons of this blog and site (you mpolzkill, Bala, and others) that I have not commented directly on this issue.
This is an emotional issue for most people. To make it an intellectual one, well, just makes people more emotional.
I don’t know RG that well. He is the second comment on this thread. When I saw his comment I thought to myself, “Oh shit…this is going to get ugly real fast”. I found his early comment not only inappropriate but manipulative. (i.e. starting a bar fight)
Furthermore, Rothbard wrote this article in 71. Roe vs. Wade wasn’t until 73. It was an issue among many personal freedoms being discussed at the time. Had he wrote this article in 1980, he probably wouldn’t have mentioned it.
The only “line” that needs to be drawn…( I am becoming redundant on this issue… yet, so many refuse to hear it.)
a) The state hauls a woman off and forces her to have an abortion (i.e. China)
b) The state hauls a woman off and forces her NOT to have an abortion (i.e. pre Roe vs. Wade)
Unless you willing to pick (a) or (b)….then everyone shut up…and have a drink…it’s Christmas time:)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=me_E5Kl6EPc
Thanks Dag.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=me_E5Kl6EPc
Thanks, Dag.
I pick some kind of (c), and I swear I’ll shut up this time.
You’re really for (b) aren’t you? The State can forcibly prevent a woman from having an abortion because to you it’s murder.
Not exactly. He will just rave and rant that it is murder, that those (like me) who condone it are the scum of the earth and that his mission is only to expose the depravity of those who condone it. He will not bother to explain how if it is murder, it is non-contradictory to take the stand that he does not support the use of force against the perpetrators of this heinous crime. He loves contradictions because he is himself a bundle of contradictions.
Indubitably, if it’s murder then abortion is one of the most horrid crimes anyone can do or try to seek out.
@Name withheld,
““Line drawn” at the EARLIEST is what I stated which implies that other people do draw the line at a later point.”
Point taken. Looks like I misunderstood what you said.
“Do you think the line can be drawn even earlier than that of conception (sperm alone or egg alone are living human beings)?”
No. I don’t.
“Do you really want to defend the same ludicrous position J Murray is that such an idea is even an option?”
No. I do not want to defend that position. What I would defend is the position that the proper place to draw the line is the point at which the foetus can survive without having to be attached with a particular person, the mother. My position is that that is the point in time when it becomes a potential human being. Prior to that, it is biologically equivalent to a ‘parasite’ attaching itself to a host and deriving its nourishment from its host. Whether to see that ‘parasite’ as a boon to nourish or a bane to get rid of can only be decided by the host to whom the ‘parasite’ has attached itself, i.e., the woman herself.
p.s. Once again into moderation (Do others face this situation as often as I am? I am sure I have said nothing offensive in this post.)
Good, well at least unlike J. Murray, you have a basic understanding of the biological processes.
A fetus, though, is definitely a potential human being – I can see why one wouldn’t classify it as a human being but we know that a fetus left undisturbed will become a human being. The question is at what point exactly is that?
All children are parasites up to a certain age when until they can find work to support themselves. Is it ok to kill off a three year old? As pre-natal technologies improve, so does the age at which a fetus can survive outside of its mother – does that move the line back?
“Is it ok to kill off a three year old?”
Is it OK to sprinkle salt on a leech and then pull it off your skin? The reason we do not condone such actions with children is that they are not necessary to get rid of the “parasite”. Abandonment without physical harm can do the job. Further, the child is truly a potential human being. It does not “leech” on any particular human being, unlike the foetus.
“As pre-natal technologies improve, so does the age at which a fetus can survive outside of its mother – does that move the line back?”
No. It does not. It moves the line that defines the start of action for those who do not support abortion. They need to organise for pre-natal support for every foetus that is being rejected by its biological mother. It just increases your workload.
Incidentally, the line depends not on technology but on nature – the nature of the foetus and of the process of child-birth.
A leech is not a person. Employing aggression against a fetus is also not necessary to get rid of it … one need only cut the umbilical cord. A child is not a potential human being, a child IS a human being. You seriously think a child is only “potentially” human? Don’t be stupid.
And those who do not support abortion definitely believe that the line depends on the nature of a fetus and child birth and yet have drawn it at conception. Is your mind so set that you cannot see why they would argue that way?
“and yet have drawn it at conception.”
Arbitrarily and erroneously.
“Is your mind so set that you cannot see why they would argue that way?”
I can see why they would argue that way – because they have started of with flawed notions in the first place.
“You seriously think a child is only “potentially” human?”
Yes. Is a child even capable of survival outside of a parasitic relationship with another human being? Yes and no. Then it is not fully human. Is it capable of growing, with some support, to live without parasitic relationships with other human beings? Then it is potentially human. Find the flaw before you call an argument stupid.
“Employing aggression against a fetus is also not necessary to get rid of it”
Force employed to get rid of a foetus is not aggression but self-defence.
“A leech is not a person.”
And neither is a foetus.
It might be erroneously but it isn’t arbitrary. Since you have demonstrated you have a problem with basic reading, try reading their arguments again.
Is a seven year old a child? Yes. If a typical seven year old a human? Yes. Fully human. So at least some children are fully human and you cannot say categorically that a child is only potentially human. A little common sense would stop you from making a fool of yourself.
Lethal self defense is not reasonable particularly if the one’s life is not actually in danger. If the fetus were somehow killing the mother, that would be true but in almost all cases it is not.
A leech is definitely not a person. A fetus – definitely more arguable than a leech. Fail more Bala.
By Rothbardian standards, Nw, pro-lifers should get cracking and create artificial wombs so an arbortion reallly means transferring the foetus to an artificia life support system where the foetus will mature to a baby and Catholics can then adopt and raise the baby – all at their own expense.
Lethal self-defence is OK is the threat is from a non-human animal with whom it is not possible to reason. So, if I reject your claim (yes… it is a claim) that a foetus is human, I don’t see scope to agree with the rest of what you say.
How ironic is it that some miscarriages are caused by the mother’s immune system identifying the foetus as an invader and destroying it?
Ha Ha Ha!! It was the mother’s responsibility to suppress her immune system and ensure that the foetus is not attacked by her (the mother’s) own body, wasn’t it?
The mother in that case does not consciously act to kill the fetus – unlike in abortion.
So what? Isn’t her immune system, like her hand, her responsibility? Just as I am responsible for my hand which hits you (if it does), isn’t it the mother’s responsibility to suppress HER immune system to prevent attacks on the foetus? The point of being conscious or otherwise is irrelevant.
Her hand is able to be controlled by her while her immune system isn’t. No doubt many mothers would like to prevent their immune system from attacking her baby but there is almost nothing a mother can do in those cases.
If someone taps you on the shoulder and you instinctively hit them so they die, you are less responsible for their death than if you had gone out of your way to repeatedly punch someone to death.
You miss the point that the woman’s body is capable of treating the foetus as it treats any other parasite – by unleashing its immune system on the parasite.
You fail again. A woman’s body may or may not reject a fetus. Your mom’s immune system didn’t reject you, now did it?
By your definition the age of independence for parents is when the child is forty years old?
Never said that, so no.
You implied if the child is thirty years old and still living with their parents then the parents can’t kick the child out. There’s no obvious line when a child becomes an adult as aging is a continuous process and some people mature faster than others. The definition of an adult varies from culture to culture.
Bala you’re ridiculous. Of course the issue of being conscious is relevant. Humans have no conscious control of their immune system, they cannot be responsible for its actions. It’s totally illogical to equate the unconscious action of one’s immune system in killing a fetus, to that of a deliberate termination of life through abortion.
And whatever happened to the reality that 2 people make a fetus? Why is a father’s rights never considered? If a man wants to keep his child, then a woman cannot have the right to terminate it. moreover why should a woman force a man to have a child and pay support if he doesn’t want it?
and how is a fetus not human life? Bala never proved this wrong. A 7 week old fetus has a heart, brain, eats and sleeps. How is it not a human? Since when is “human” only mean it can support itself? that’s total rubbish. Human is simply the species, not whether it can “support” itself. A baby is dependent, and is a human. A fetus is dependent and is human. A paraplegic is dependent but still a physical human.
you make no sense Bala quit it.
I make sense because any other assumption involves a relationship of slavery and is hence unlibertarian.
what? what relationship of Slavery are you talking about? we’re talking about murder here.
The mother to the foetus. And it’s murder only if you swallow the premise that it is human life If you do not, it is not murder.
The father is free to find another surrogate mother to carry the foetus. And pay her for it or even marry her.
There seems to be some confusion about a fetus being a parasite. The definition of a parasite is defined as such: A parasite is defined as an organism of one species living in or on an organism of another species (a heterospecifc relationship) and deriving its nourishment from the host (is metabolically dependent on the host). A human embryo or fetus is an organism of one species (Homo sapiens) living in the uterine cavity of an organism of the same species (Homo sapiens) and deriving its nourishment from the mother (is metabolically dependent on the mother). This homospecific relationship is an obligatory dependent relationship, but not a parasitic relationship. A parasite is an invading organism — comings to parasitize the host from an outside source. A human embryo or fetus is formed from a fertilized egg — the egg coming from an inside source, being formed in the ovary of the mother from where is moves into the oviduct where it may be fertilized to from the zygote — the first cell of the new human being. A parasite is an organism that, once it invades the definitive host, will usually remain with the host for life (as long as it or the host survives). A human embryo or fetus has a temporary association with the mother, remaining only a number of months in the uterus. A parasite is an organism that associates with the host in a negative, unhealthy and nonessential (nonessential to the host) manner which will often damage the host and detrimentally affect the procreative capacity of the host (and species). A human embryo or fetus is a human being that associates with the mother in a positive, healthful essential manner necessary for the procreation of the species. So I say a fetus can not be classified as a parasitic. Parasite refers to an alien organism living its life in the expense of its host. All parasites in nature use a species of a different kind as host. There are no examples of a parasite living in its own kind in the nature. Fetus is an offspring. There is no scientific classification that puts offsprings in a parasitic category. The things your own body create can not be considered parasitic. If we look at all the examples in nature we will not see any organism that creates its own parasite. I will accept my statement being wrong if: 1. You can provide any scientific source that names fetus as a parasite, or parasitic, or having parasitic nature. 2. You can provide any source that shows there is one more parasite in nature that is being hosted by its own kind. 3. You can provide any source that shows there are instances in the nature host that creates its own parasite. (Please note: Scientific source is referred as coming from any academical source which is created for scientific reasons and not related to political debates).
Please!! That is why I kept using the word parasite in quotes as “parasite”. That means that though it is not technically a parasite, it is in a state equivalent to that of a parasite where it latches on to another living thing and derives its nourishment from it, even at the risk of adversely affecting the well-being of the host.
according to Bala: even though it’s not a parasite it’s still a parasite
*loonie logic warning*
even at the risk of adversely affecting the well being? that’s not even it’s intention, neither is that a common occurrence. Furthermore, babies and young children are also dependent on parents for their survival. so because they’re “parasites” we should be able to kill them?
Actually, it is the other way. Even though it is a parasite as the word ‘parasite’ is defined in the English language, because Joe chooses to use the ‘scientific’ definition, it is not.
“Furthermore, babies and young children are also dependent on parents for their survival. so because they’re “parasites” we should be able to kill them?”
How about abandoning? Or are parents bound by a slave contract that requires them never to abandon them?
“The things your own body create can not be considered parasitic.”
False. Cancerous cells are considered parasitic and sought to be destroyed.
@Bala,
“Cancerous cells are considered parasitic.” Give the scientific source of this statement. Parasites can contribute to creating cancer, but cancer is not parasitic.
Your statements make no sense. Just dug one random link out to show that I make sense.
http://www.cell.com/trends/biochemical-sciences/abstract/0968-0004(86)90087-3
There are scientists who consider cancer cells as parasitic.
Read the article again. It did not say cancer is parasitic. They have acquired parasitic features. Did not say they are parasitic.
It is the same as saying they are parasitic. The word “parasitic” is an adjective that describes the nature of the cells. They are not ‘parasites’ in the strictest “scientific” sense of the word but they have almost all the defining characteristics of parasites. That’s all I have been saying right from the beginning.
Do you ever use the word ‘inflation’ to mean anything other than increase in the money supply or do you insist that the word has only an economic definition and nothing else? Your argument is on similar lines and as silly.
Here’s one more
http://www.researchsea.com/html/article.php/aid/4219/cid/1/research/could_anti-parasitic_drugs_be_effective_against_cancer_.html
I hope you see nothing “political” in the links I have provided.
There is nothing in this research paper that says cancer is parasitic. It has some similar characteristics but that does not make it a parasite or parasitic. Do you have a problem with comprehension?
Please!!! You are mistaking the scientist’s definition of a word for the definition of the word itself. This definition is as used by the scientist in his study of relationships in the biological world.
The basic english language meaning of a word can be and often is broader than the scientist’s definition of a word. One human being can be a parasite on another. Any living being can be a parasite on any other. Your 2 -species requirement is ridiculous.
“You can provide any source that shows there are instances in the nature host that creates its own parasite.”
I have already shown it and I do not need “scientific” support. Cancerous cells.
@Bala,
You need all the support you can get. You are starting to fall apart and now we are supposed to just believe you because you say so. Give it up.
Just dug out a couple of links to show that your definition of parasites is completely incorrect and that you have added attributes to suit your line of argument.
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=4769
http://student.biology.arizona.edu/honors98/group15/whatisaparasite.htm
Please note this important point in the second link.
“The parasite has to be in its host to live, grow, and multiply. Parasites rarely kill their hosts.”
So much for your attempts to show that my use of the word “parasite” is incorrect.
One more source to show that your (unnecessarily long) definition of the term “parasite” is wrong.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/parasite
The foetus, incidentally, fits every definition I am finding.
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Parasite
http://www.science-dictionary.com/definition/parasite.html
http://www.amentsoc.org/insects/glossary/terms/parasite
http://www.wordnik.com/words/parasite
@Bala,
Do the fetus and parasites share some common characteristics? Yes they both are carried by the host, they both are fed by the host and the list can go on. But sharing some characteristics do not make a fetus parasitic. Important point here is the scientific method of classification. In science you can not make conclusions depending on comparing characteristics. In order to identify something, first you need to establish the criteria. Necessity of establishing a criteria while studying in science is a practice that comes from the time of Aristotle. I have already given you the criteria while identifying what is parasitic. Here are some of the criteria:
Parasite refers to an alien organism living its life in the expense of its host. All parasites in nature use a species of different kind as host. There are not examples of a parasite living in its own kind in the nature. Fetus is an OFFSPRING. There is no scientific classification puts offsprings in parasitic category. The things your own body create can not be considered parasitic. Once again if we look at all the examples in the nature we will not see any organism that creates its own parasite.
“All parasites in nature use a species of different kind as host.”
Please. A different organism. One human being can live in a parasitic relationship with another consuming the fruits of the other’s labour for nothing in exchange. Scientific definitions are for scientific purposes.
“All parasites in nature use a species of different kind as host.”
As studied by the biologist who starts with the premise that there is no such thing as ‘parasitism’ within a species. That’s life defining issues out of existence. The word ‘parasite’ means more in English than the scientist sees in it.
“But sharing some characteristics do not make a fetus parasitic.”
Ha Ha Ha! If it shared all features, it would be a parasite and not be called ‘parasitic’. The only feature different is that it is genetically the same species.
Once again, ‘parasitic’ is an adjective that means ‘having the nature of a parasite’.
I am sure you have quibbles over the “two species” bit, but please also bear in mind that I said that the relationship is parasitic and referred to the foetus as a “parasite” in quotes. Keep the quibble up, but it does not make you right.
Anyone arguing against the legitimacy of abortion needs to bear in mind that they are being advocates of slavery and hence cannot claim to to be backed by libertarian principles.
To Diogenes,
The father is free to find another surrogate mother to carry the foetus. And pay her for it or even marry her.
p.s. I don’t know why my comment went into moderation. So, sorry for replying elsewhere.
The mother is free to have the child. To have the father find another surrogate mother is to force him to do so to save the baby.
The mother has no obligation to continue the life-support.If the father wishes to do so if he wants to. To force the mother to do so against her will is slavery.
Bala you’re such a loon. Please tell me which women would accept the idea of a father’s right to find a surrogate womb to take the fetus out of her’s because she doesn’t want it and the father does. Many women who want an abortion are not going to consider the father’s wants let alone allow him to take the fetus out and put it in another surrogate womb. Not to mention the seriously dangerous procedure this would entail for the fetus and women involved. So in your quest against slavery and coercion, a father shouldn’t have to be forced to find another “surrogate” womb and risk the death of the fetus just because the mother doesn’t want it.
this is why libertarians must accept the fact of consequences to one’s actions. when 2 parties have sex they must be responsible for any life that they make. A slave never had a choice, whereas a couple always choose to have sex.
Thanks for letting the language degenerate. In contrast to my past history, I shall not let that happen.
“Please tell me which women would accept the idea of a father’s right to find a surrogate womb to take the fetus out of her’s because she doesn’t want it and the father does. ”
Irrelevant hypothetical.
“Many women who want an abortion are not going to consider the father’s wants let alone allow him to take the fetus out and put it in another surrogate womb.”
Irrelevant hypothetical.
“Not to mention the seriously dangerous procedure this would entail for the fetus and women involved.”
As far as the foetus is concerned, a person who does not consider it a person would not mind the risk involved. If it works, you have a person. As fas as the women are comcerned, the donor is obviously willing (otherwise the situation in itself would not come about). The surrogate is also willing. Otherwise she wouldn’t be in line to be a surrogate. So what’s your problem?
” So in your quest against slavery and coercion, a father shouldn’t have to be forced to find another “surrogate” womb and risk the death of the fetus just because the mother doesn’t want it.”
The father is the one who wants the mother to hold te foetus (in your hypothetical). Telling him “go find your own incubator” is not slavery.
“when 2 parties have sex they must be responsible for any life that they make.”
This is a moral issue and not a legal one. Further, it is life after it is born.
“A slave never had a choice, whereas a couple always choose to have sex.”
In your world, the mother never has the choice to remove the foetus, something which has established a parasitic relationship with her, and is hence enslaved to the foetus.
It’s so incredibly sad that people now think of children as parasites, isn’t it?
What’s even more incredibly sad is watching otherwise rational people fail to call a spade a spade and to fail to call a parasitical relationship by that name and use deeply though obviously flawed arguments.
It is even more incredibly sad to see the statement ‘the relationship is parasitical’ interpreted as ‘the child is a parasite’ rather than ‘the child is a dependent’. The real saddening part is the almost religious fervour to paint a person who disagrees as an evil person who is not human.
Bala, The scientist uses the biological definition and the parasite is defined specifically by its characteristics and then classified. You use a prejorative definition which is disparaging and belittling as it pertains to the human condition. You also use the word parasite metaphorically which does not accurately define the word. You say that the fetus is “equalvalent to a parasite. The scientific definition and classification says you are wrong. I just choose to use the biological correct definition when speaking about biological processes.
Firstly, the biologist’s definition includes the idea of two different species because the unit of his study is the species. While he may study individual specimen, the objective is always to understand the species per se. So, the biologist’s definition is unsuitable for our discussion which involves individual entities and not whole species. We will therefore have to discard that definition (and with it the 2-species requirement) and work with the basic English language definition of the word which is
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/parasite
Secondly, my definition is not metaphorical, pejorative, disparaging or belittling. My definition was simply based on the fact that the foetus
1. resides in another organism
2. derives its nourishment from another organism
3. cannot survive outside that organism
Incidentally, this explanation of mine applies (and I mentioned it once) to all mammalian species and it would hence be erroneous to take it to be pejorative, metaphorical, disparaging or belittling the human condition.
Thirdly, we are not talking about biological processes out here and hence the “correct” biological definition is not necessarily appropriate here.
Bala, I hope you didn’t think I was tying to paint you as a “evil” person. I do believe that there are ideas that are evil if enacted out. Words are very powerful and have great influence on the actions of man. I understand your use of the word “parasitic” but I also know it can be pejorative and disparaging. I in fact commend you on your defense of your position. I find it to differ from mine but that is why I respond on this blog. The people that truly distrube me are the one’s that sit on the fence and don’t offer an opinion one way or another based on it cannot be proven absoulutely. There are people on this blog that obloviate on many subjects with percision and accuracy. They draw their conclusion from experience, education and life in general. I find it distrubing that at this late juncture in the evolution of human knowledge that a person still has problems with committing to a response one way or another on the issue at hand. If anything, as a libertarian I would want to find clarity on a issue as important as this. It was fun going back and forth with you and I find it very stimulating.
No. You did not. And many thanks for the discussion. I like to be forced to think it (whatever it may be) through. And this is, as I see it, an important issue.
Comments on this entry are closed.